Standing Committee A

[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Clause 14 - Review procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: This apparently straightforward clause applies certain provisions of the Local Government Act 1992 to a review carried out by the boundary committee under this part of the Bill. It is relatively impenetrable, and I wonder whether the Under-Secretary would help the Committee by running through the various provisions in the table and explaining in plain English—his Department's speciality—what they mean.

Christopher Leslie: After that extremely brief but—

Philip Hammond: Adequate.

Christopher Leslie: After that adequate speech, I shall do my best to respond.
 Clause 14 makes provision for the basis on which local government reviews are to be carried out and for the procedures to be adopted by the boundary committee. It does so by importing the relevant provisions of the 1992 Act, modified as necessary to reflect the particular circumstances of the reviews. The Act defines structural and boundary change, sets out the procedure to be followed by the boundary committee in carrying out the reviews and provides for the assistance of the Audit Commission should it be required. 
 The modifications to the Act do four things. First, they reflect the fact that the Bill directly charges the boundary committee for England with reviewing the structure and boundaries of local authorities in the region and making recommendations to the Secretary of State. That differs from the Act, which would normally place a duty on the Electoral Commission to recommend structural and boundary changes for an area. The modifications therefore take the Electoral Commission out of the equation and insert in its place the boundary committee. 
 Secondly, the Act allows for electoral reviews as well as structure and boundary reviews. Electoral reviews are often the necessary consequence of structure or boundary reviews and provide for the electoral arrangements, including warding, that will govern elections in the restructuring authorities. Electoral reviews may be needed before elections can be held to the new unitary authorities recommended by the boundary committee. 
 The Government have decided, however, that electoral reviews should not be conducted at the same time as local government reviews. To do otherwise might involve work that could ultimately prove to be unnecessary if, following a referendum, we did not establish a regional assembly. The modifications therefore mean that electoral reviews will not be carried out as part of local government reviews. There will be time afterwards to conduct such electoral reviews before elections to the new authorities. 
 Thirdly, the amendments omit references to London authorities, as they will not be subject to local government reviews. Fourthly, the clause modifies the Act to ensure that parish boundaries are not included in local government reviews. We do not intend the pattern of parish and town councils to be affected by changes to the structure and boundaries of the principal authorities in the regions. There are, in any case, well-established arrangements for the creation or alteration of parishes, and they are quite adequate to deal with the alteration of parish boundaries in the event that any is needed as a result of local government reviews. 
 The clause ensures that local government reviews will be conducted in much the same manner as structure and boundary reviews carried out by the Electoral Commission under the 1992 Act. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Philip Hammond: I am impressed by the Under-Secretary's encyclopaedic knowledge of the clause. For a ''mere Minister'', I thought that it was impressive. I am most grateful to him for that clarification, and I have no further questions.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Implementation of recommendations

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
clause 15, page 8, line 45, after '1', insert 'and at least twenty-five per cent. of persons eligible to vote at that referendum voted in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly for the region.'.
 My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is urging me that we should make substantial and rapid progress through our remaining business, so I shall attempt to be relatively brief. I am sure that Ministers will seek to do likewise when replying. 
 The amendment effectively introduces our old friend the hurdle—a threshold test—for any implementation of recommendations following a referendum in a region. In the Bill, the simple fact that a referendum has been held on proposals for an elected assembly is adequate grounds for the Secretary of State to go ahead and implement the boundary committee changes or, as may be the case following subsequent amendments, some variation of them. 
 The amendment would introduce a requirement that half the people eligible to vote would need to vote in the referendum, and at least half of them would 
 need to vote yes, before the Secretary of State could proceed. For a significant constitutional change, that does not seem unreasonable. Before the Minister for Local Government and the Regions leaps to his feet and rakes over old coals, I shall say that the amendment takes a different approach to the threshold than that of earlier amendments in my name. That serves to emphasise to any fair-minded members of the Committee that the Opposition, unlike the Government, are prepared to listen to criticism of their reasoning and arguments and, where it has merit, to reconsider. 
 I have therefore taken on board what the Minister said, which was that the introduction of a threshold for participation only would have the perverse consequence of making an abstention effectively a no vote. After considerable reflection on that with my right hon. and hon. Friends, we have concluded that that is not the right way to proceed and it is not the message that we would like to send. However, we think a threshold important for a major constitutional change. 
 The amendment attempts to express that threshold as 25 per cent. of persons eligible to vote voting yes. That does not require there to be a 50 per cent. turnout, although one would hope that the turnout would be high. A 26 per cent. turnout would be sufficient if nearly everyone voted yes, which is highly unlikely but theoretically possible.

Kevan Jones: Why did the hon. Gentleman choose the figure of 25 per cent?

Philip Hammond: That is a good question, and I expect it to arise in future debates as well. Some of my hon. Friends, if not those on the Committee, feel that 25 per cent. is too low a hurdle. Some Labour Members will argue that it is too high. When a simple plurality of the votes cast is normally regarded as sufficient to determine the question—

Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Hammond: I will in a moment. I hope that in delaying I will not give some ground that my hon. Friend was about to steer me away from, but I instinctively feel that 25 per cent.—half of one half of the electorate—is a fair and reasonable level at which to pitch the threshold.

Desmond Swayne: It seems to me a modest figure. It is not entirely dissimilar to the turnout at a run-of-the-mill local election. Under a Labour Government, a 40 per cent. threshold was imposed for a referendum in Scotland.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong in saying that a threshold of 25 per cent. of eligible voters voting yes would have qualified the results of the referendums for both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Many of my hon. Friends would think that we were generous in regarding the outcome of the Welsh referendum as legitimate, because it was by such a narrow majority. The only referendum that
 would just have fallen foul of the threshold was the one for the Greater London Assembly, for which some 24.5 per cent. of eligible voters voted yes.
 The amendment represents a stab at imposing a reasonable threshold and seeks to draw the Minister on the issue. If he were to say that the Government recognise the need for a threshold—so that there need not be a major constitutional change or a reorganisation of our institutions or system of government in England—but that they are uncomfortable with 25 per cent. and propose another figure, we would be disposed to consider his suggestion carefully. The amendment would not affect the Secretary of State's discretion to implement the elected assembly; it would leave him free to ignore the result of a referendum. However, it would introduce a test, which would be a prerequisite for the introduction of such an assembly. 
 The introduction of elected regional assemblies, and the referendums themselves, will be a major distraction from the most important single challenge facing local government—the delivery of effective and efficient public services. No part of our nation should embark lightly upon such a change, with all the disruption and cost that it would involve. The endorsement of fewer than a quarter of eligible voters of a radical change to our constitutional arrangements would indicate that it had insufficient support in the country or the region. I urge the Committee to support the introduction, here and elsewhere in the Bill, of a modest threshold to ensure that radical action is not taken without some indication that it enjoys a body of support.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is almost saying, the amendment would not prevent an elected regional assembly from being brought into existence, even if fewer than 25 per cent. of the electorate voted for it. However, it would prevent the Secretary of State from implementing the boundary committee's recommendations following a review of local government in the region. That is the kind of amendment that I would have expected from the Liberal Democrats, who are keen to have regional assemblies, but not so keen on local government reorganisation.

Philip Hammond: I cannot let that pass. I have been accused of lots of things in my time and I usually take them in good part. However, I have never been accused of being like a Liberal Democrat; I would go so far as to suggest to the Minister that that is almost unparliamentary language. I am sure that he will be happy to acknowledge that these and other Opposition amendments address not only the implementation of the boundary committee's recommendations, but the programme of elected regional assemblies.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is clearly sensitive about the issue, and he will become more sensitive as we proceed. As I shall demonstrate on a subsequent amendment, there is rather disturbing evidence that the Conservative party is keen to get into the Liberal Democrat Valhalla. I do not know what its motivation is; I merely said that the
 amendment would not prevent the elected regional assembly from coming into existence.
 There is, however, a question about whether there is any justification for a threshold, or a hurdle, as the hon. Gentleman rather interestingly described it. I think that that gave the game away and that the Opposition are looking for obstacles that will prevent elected regional assemblies from coming into existence. The hon. Gentleman conceded that a 25 per cent. threshold would have had that effect in London, although only just. That would have replicated the problem that existed throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s in Scotland, where an artificial threshold prevented the people's desire for a degree of devolution from taking effect. Exactly the same would have happened with a threshold in London. That is the key argument against a threshold. 
 The other argument against thresholds is that there is no obvious way of deciding at what level to set them, and the Opposition's change of position on the issue illustrates the problem. On Second Reading, they argued that 50 per cent. of people would have to vote and that a majority would have to vote yes. Indeed, they originally tabled an amendment to that effect, although it has now been withdrawn. That may have been in the light of the experience in Serbia, where we have seen the chronic consequences of arbitrary thresholds in the past few days. In the elections for the Serbian presidency, Vojislav Kostunica has twice been frustrated. He won a majority in both elections, but in neither case did 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote do so. Just under half the people voted, but there is no question that they voted for Mr. Kostunica. Sadly, he is unable to take office because of the threshold. That is the consequence of arbitrary thresholds.

Philip Hammond: The Minister's example is a good one. Serbia is exactly the type of country where serious consequences might ensue if the turnout was, say, 30 per cent., and 15.5 per cent. of the electorate voted for one candidate, who then assumed office claiming a democratic mandate. Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that that might lead to serious problems if it happened in Serbia?

Nick Raynsford: I shall resist going too far down that road because I might incur your wrath, Mr. Butterfill. I say only that the absence of leadership and the creation of a vacuum, which are the consequence of a threshold, are serious problems.

Christopher Leslie: Opposition Members should know.

Nick Raynsford: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Opposition are probably very familiar with that problem.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister concede that such a vacuum and such a lack of leadership would not arise in the United Kingdom, because existing local government structures would provide leadership?

Nick Raynsford: I am tempted to respond, but I am mindful of the need to keep to the relevant issues.

Jim Knight: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is, like me, mindful of the
 circumstances that followed the United States presidential election. Fifty per cent. of the population was registered to vote and less than 50 per cent. of the electorate voted for the current President. Does he think that the Opposition feel that the President is not the valid leader of that country?

John Butterfill: Order. I would prefer the Minister not to answer that question. We can be tempted into giving all sorts of examples from overseas, but they are not strictly relevant.
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall give way for the last time.

Adrian Flook: The Minister is an expert on Serbia and other issues and he will no doubt be able to help those of us who were only 13 or 14 at the time of the Scottish referendum—unlike the Under-Secretary, who may or may not have started school in the late 1970s. Will he tell those of us who were not eligible to vote why the country chose a 40 per cent. threshold? That would give us some background as to why he is arguing against thresholds.

Nick Raynsford: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Butterfill, I will say only that that was a classic example of an ill-thought-out addition to a measure, resulting, as I recall, from Back-Bench amendments. The outcome was an arbitrary figure, the effect of which was to frustrate the wishes of the people of Scotland, despite the best efforts of the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who I gather was at that time stuffing ballot boxes in Scotland and had to make a brief appearance before a sheriff court.

Desmond Swayne: Stuffing ballot boxes was far from what I was accused of, and I was granted an absolute discharge.

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted to learn that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman got away with it, but, in keeping with rehabilitation of offenders legislation, we do not intend to give him the opportunity to try to repeat those activities in England.
 Thresholds do not help the process. They can provide a perverse incentive for people not to vote.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that as the Minister was making that statement he realised that it was not applicable to the present case. I withdrew my previous amendment and am taking my present approach because of that issue. We are considering the percentage of the eligible electorate who vote; the number who vote no is irrelevant.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter, he will realise that the case that he is making is not correct. There is quite a lot of evidence that the turnout tends to be higher in elections that are closely contested. In an election that is seen as a foregone conclusion there is often a relatively low turnout. There would, therefore, be a perverse incentive for those opposed to the introduction of elected regional assemblies to make no effort to campaign, in the belief that that would discourage those in favour from turning out, since they would see the election as a foregone conclusion. Perverse consequences of that nature can happen.
 The constitution and electoral arrangements in this country have always been based on the simple principle of the majority prevailing. Equally, the Government are committed to trying to increase turnout. We have taken several measures to try to encourage that. I have recently encouraged local authorities to apply to conduct pilots of different voting methods next May, following on from last May's successful pilots. That is all to do with attempts to encourage turnout. 
 Encouragements to participate, such as the Bill contains, are right; perverse incentives, such as thresholds, which might have the opposite effect, should not be used. I do not believe that a threshold is appropriate, and I certainly do not believe that a perverse threshold that would prevent local government reorganisation from being implemented, while not in any way preventing elected regional assemblies from being introduced, would add anything significant to the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment; if he will not, I urge hon. Members to vote against it.

Matthew Green: It is fascinating that even before a Liberal Democrat Member has spoken, the Liberal Democrats have been mentioned half a dozen times. That is obviously a sign of the changing times.
 There is something that worries me about the amendment, in view of the fact that the Conservatives seem to think that regional government will inspire such passionate dislike that they should use it as a major local campaigning platform—and as far as we can tell it is their main campaign platform in the run-up to the local elections in Shropshire, at least. If they expect people to recoil from regional assemblies, why are they worried about thresholds? In elections, people who oppose something are often more strongly motivated than people who are in favour. It is easier to motivate people to vote against something. If there is a groundswell of opposition, people will not just decide that they cannot be bothered to vote. People are more likely to stay at home if they think that the result is a foregone conclusion, as the Minister suggested. At the moment, they are likely to think that those elections that come first are more likely to be won. The amendment attempts to put another obstacle in the way of regional government.

Philip Hammond: Just to get the hon. Gentleman back to the point, if, on a 15 per cent. turnout, 8 per cent. of the electorate voted for a radical change to our constitutional arrangements, would he feel that that was sufficient mandate to carry out such change?

Matthew Green: Ultimately, Parliament would decide whether to go ahead with such a change. The referendum will not be the deciding factor. It will be an indicative referendum. If there were such worryingly low turnouts, I am sure that the matter would be raised in the House on any vote to set up a regional assembly, because the Bill does not set up regional assemblies.

Philip Hammond: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is a fudge. He is right, the matter would ultimately come back to Parliament—and, at least for the moment, he is a Member of that Parliament, so perhaps he would tell us how he would vote on the issue. If the turnout for a referendum were 15 per cent., and if just over half of those who voted supported the establishment of a regional assembly, would he feel constrained to vote against the proposal on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of a mandate?

Adrian Flook: Yes or no.

Matthew Green: We should not start discussing hypothetical votes.

Christopher Leslie: He got there in the end.

Matthew Green: No, I would be very worried if the turnout were as low as that. I shall not go blindly down the local government route because I have strong concerns about the form that it may take in my area, as we have discussed. However, I shall not test the Committee's patience over Shropshire matters. As it is debatable whether I would be able to play a big part, if any, in a yes campaign in the west midlands, it is dangerous to assume that I would vote one way or another in future as a result of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Why is it debatable whether the hon. Gentleman could play a large part in a yes campaign? Is it because he thinks that it might damage his chances electorally to do so? If so, is that not just about the most cynical statement that the Committee has heard?

Matthew Green: No. I do not know what effect it would have electorally, but I have grave concerns, which I have raised before, about Shropshire being part of the west midlands. I would prefer it to become part of a different sort of regional makeup. With those concerns, I may not be in a position to support a yes campaign. I would have thought that that was clear. It is as clear as I can make it, but perhaps it is not clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.
 To return to the amendment, there are hurdles enough in the way of regional government without creating yet another one, as Conservative Members are trying to do. Let us debate the results of the referendums first, rather than setting some artificial level. Let us leave the provision as it is without introducing any fresh obstacles.

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the campaign against regional assemblies will be the main plank of the Conservative party's campaign in next year's local elections, and if the Liberal Democrats are building their strategy on that basis, I suggest that he should scuttle around to Cowley street as soon as the Committee adjourns and warn them that it is not. The main plank of our campaign in my area and many others will be the imminent collapse of our public services, due to the Government's chronic underfunding.

Nick Raynsford: Is that why, in the expectation of the consequences of that campaign, Conservative central office was yesterday briefing that it expected to make no gains at all—[Interruption.]

John Butterfill: Order. I would prefer it if we did not continue down that route.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is in mischievous mood, since he understands perfectly well what was said.
 Let us turn to the Minister's speech in response to the amendment. You have chaired Committees on which I have served, Mr. Butterfill, and, as you know, I have always been delighted to while away many a happy hour of the evening discussing semantics. On thresholds and hurdles, I invite the Minister to consider the fact that a hurdle to a mouse may be a mere threshold to a lion. I would suggest that there is nothing particularly significant in my choice of words in that respect. 
 The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the obvious fact that an advisory referendum is not an election. The examples that he used of the perils—as he sees them—of thresholds or hurdles were all drawn from elections. The Secretary of State will use the referendum in deciding how to proceed, as will Parliament ultimately, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said. One test that the Government themselves have introduced in clause 1 is the test of the level of interest, which is that there should not be referendums on the creation of regional assemblies where there is no significant, or a low level of, public interest. We have consistently invited the right hon. Gentleman to put some objectivity into those tests. 
 We should try to move away from the posturing that inevitably takes place in Committee proceedings. I would have been delighted if the right hon. Gentleman had said—as I think he very nearly said previously—that there would be a requirement for a significant measure of participation. We do not yet know whether that is 25, 35 or 45 per cent. However, I take it as read and understood on all sides that Ministers would not be minded to proceed to the creation of elected regional assemblies if total turnout was perhaps 25 per cent. and just over half voted yes. 
 During further proceedings on the Bill, in particular on the Floor of the House tomorrow, the Conservative party will address the issue again and get some clarity from the Minister as to what level of public support is required to undertake a major change in our constitutional arrangements. I submit that it is entirely reasonable and proper to require that there be significant public support. We can debate all day what significant means in this context; however, I would like to hear the Minister acknowledge that there must be significant support.

Matthew Green: Are you not in danger of making an assumption about the view of people who do not vote? You are talking about significant levels of public support—

John Butterfill: Order. I am not in danger of anything—I hope.

Matthew Green: I am sorry, Mr. Butterfill. I should have framed my intervention differently.
 The spokesman for the Conservative party is in danger of making an assumption about whether people who do not vote support something. The assumption that runs throughout his comments is that if people do not vote yes, they do not support the proposals. The reasons why people do not vote are many and varied, though it is worrying to assume that it is because they do not support the proposals.

Philip Hammond: On the contrary. The objection that the hon. Gentleman raised is the objection that the Minister raised in earlier debate on my previous approach, which was about the threshold for participation. Upon reflection, I agree with the Minister that such an approach will have an unfortunate perverse outcome that we want to avoid, so I disagree with what the hon. Member for Ludlow said. If we are to have a significant change to our constitutional arrangements, we would expect that a certain proportion of the population had expressed support for that change. It would be absurd radically to change our constitutional arrangements if only 1 per cent. of the electorate voted and just over half of those electors said yes. The answer must be no to such a change. Public concern about, and support for, the proposal must be tested.
 However, I shall not detain the Committee with such an argument primarily because, as the Minister said, the threshold test—the implementation of the boundary committee review—will be introduced in a subsidiary part of the Bill. It is appropriate to have a more lengthy debate about substantive issues under clause 1 tomorrow on the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
clause 15, page 9, line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

John Butterfill: With this we will take the following:
 Amendment No. 60, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 3, leave out 'all or any of'.
 Amendment No. 62, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (3).
 Amendment No. 67, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Under subsection 3 above the only modification which the Secretary of State may make is the retention of existing local authority structures.'.
 Amendment No. 63, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 20, leave out paragraph (6).

Philip Hammond: The amendments bring us back to our old friends ''may'' and ''shall''. In some Committees on which I have served, I have suffered the ignominious fate of having all my proposals concerning ''may'' and ''shall'' grouped into only one group of amendments, so that we are forced to debate the issue only once at the beginning of our proceedings. However, I am glad that we can now debate each clause separately and discuss the importance or otherwise of giving the Secretary of State such discretion.
 I am considering debating amendment No. 59 in light of the amendment that I have just withdrawn. It would delete ''may'' and introduce ''shall'', so that if there is a certain outcome of the referendum and the Secretary of State goes ahead with his elected regional assembly establishment, he ''shall'' give effect to the boundary committee plans. Amendment No. 60 would remove 
''all or any of the recommendations''
 from subsection (2). It is important to bear in mind that the boundary committee is making a recommendation to the Government, something of which they have made a great play. Such a recommendation will be in the public domain and will inform the electors before they put their cross on the referendum ballot paper. 
 It is absurd to go to all that effort and expense and—dare I say it to the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman who would abhor it—delay in arriving at the referendum only to have boundary committee recommendations that the Secretary of State may or may not give effect to, with or without modifications, all or any of its recommendations. That says to the elector that money has been spent, a delay has been caused, the Government have received the boundary committee's recommendation, but that the electors can deduce nothing about what may follow from such action if there were a yes vote in the referendum. 
 Amendment No. 62 also attacks the words ''with or without modifications'' under subsection (3). I must not get ahead of myself, but I shall explain the position if the three amendments were accepted. If a referendum has been held and the Secretary of State has decided to establish an elected regional assembly, he shall give an order to put into effect all of the boundary committee's recommendations without modification. If we are to have objective, impartial bodies making such recommendations, it is essential that they are implemented in toto. If the boundary committee's recommendations have been explicitly placed before the electors as a guide to their behaviour in the referendum ballot, it would be inappropriate, verging on electorally fraudulent, to tamper with those recommendations thereafter. 
 Amendment No. 67 is in the name of the Liberal Democrats. I am in a charitable mood this morning. I have written that the amendment is a wonderful example of how the Liberal Democrats ''fudge'', but will use a different expression. The amendment is a wonderful example of how they seek to balance all sides of every argument. They agree that the Secretary of State should not have unlimited power to meddle with the boundary committee's recommendations, but they are prepared to allow him to interfere with them if his interference is in the direction that the Liberal Democrats favour—in that of the retention of existing local authority structures. 
Matthew Green rose—

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak to his amendment, and no doubt he
 will then explain the logic behind it. [Interruption.] Well, he may do.
 Amendment No. 63 would leave out subsection (6). We have seen such subsections elsewhere in the Bill, but subsection (6) would allow a really bizarre arrangement. I am a relative newcomer to the House—I have been here only five and a half years—but I do not recall that legislation generally provides that if a Secretary of State believes that there has been a mistake in an order and cannot put it right in another order, he can do anything he likes to cover up the mistake. That is what subsection (6) comes down to. That does not seem appropriate. 
 If the issue is one of mistakes in directions, the solution is clear: make the directions by order. Then, they can be scrutinised by Parliament, and there would be a chance that members of the scrutiny Committee involved would spot the mistake, and that the Government would avoid getting a great plateful of egg on their face. If a mistake were made none the less, a further order under the procedures of the House could deal with the matter. I fail to see the necessity or desirability of subsection (6), and I wait with interest to hear how the Minister defends it.

Matthew Green: I shall skirt around the Conservative amendments for the moment. Amendment No. 67, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), would do just one thing, and I shall explain that particularly for the benefit of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State is, in effect, limited either to accepting or rejecting the boundary committee's recommendations. It prevents him from tinkering with and changing suggested boundaries or council organisations for political purposes, for example.
 There is a bit of history of which I am sure that the Conservatives are not too proud. I shall remind them of it, because it is one reason why we tabled the amendment. During the previous local government review, the then boundary commission made a number of recommendations. In the case of Shropshire—the one that I know best—it recommended that the two-tier structure be kept, because the overwhelming public response to its consultation had been that the public wanted two-tier government. The matter went back to central Government and the Minister responsible said, ''I am not having this. Whatever happens, there must be a unitary authority for Telford. Go back and make sure that you return with a recommendation that includes a unitary authority for Telford.'' The result was that the boundary commission had no choice but to introduce what was the worst of all worlds—a unitary authority for Telford was established leaving an unsupportable two-tier government for the rest of Shropshire. We now seek a unitary authority for the rest of Shropshire. The process was meddled with. 
 The Conservatives should be broadly in agreement with what our amendment seeks to do, which is to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to say, ''Yes, we accept what the boundary committee has done'', or 
 ''No, you need to start all over again with a clean sheet of paper.''

Philip Hammond: If that is what the hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to achieve, it is redundant. As drafted, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power either to make an order that gives effect or not. That has the outcome that he recommends. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problem of voters being induced into a pattern of behaviour at the referendum by having already seen the boundary committee report. The Government are adamant that that must be in place before the referendum is held, which will cause delay and expense. It will be meaningless at best and misleading at worst if it is then not implemented following a yes vote.

Matthew Green: I agree. I would prefer to see much more information, especially details of the powers involved, before we go ahead with a referendum. My amendment would not be redundant. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill already allows for what my amendment seeks to do, but the Bill allows for modifications. My amendment would prevent the Minister from making modifications. Our view is broadly in line with other Conservative amendments on the issue, although amendment Nos. 62 and 67 would clash for obvious reasons. I do not wish to take up much more of the Committee's time. I have explained our point of view and why we seek limitations on the Minister's powers.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge began by expressing pleasure that his various ''mays'' and ''shalls'' have not all been grouped together. I am pleased to tell him that we will have further opportunities later this morning to discuss those. Who knows what pleasure that may bring to the hon. Gentleman?
 For the moment, let us concentrate on this group of amendments. Clause 15 provides for the implementation by the Government of the recommendations of the boundary committee and for the Government to use discretion in the implementation process. Subsection (2) allows for discretion in the making of an order. It provides that an order be made to give effect to recommendations. 
 Why do we want discretion in making the orders? The answer is simple. The Government may decide that the recommendations of the boundary committee are not appropriate. The Secretary of State may receive representations and need to give them full consideration. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility to implement proposals and his decision to make the order. He must have the ability to react to representations and give them full consideration. It may lead to making modifications to the recommendations or, if necessary, rejecting them. By seeking to remove that ability, hon. Members are denying the Government the opportunity fully to consider the recommendations in light of circumstances and to react to or reflect representations that may be received. 
 The hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he said that the amendment could result in the electorate being 
 misled if the Government held a referendum on the basis of the boundary committee's recommendations and then implemented different proposals. We have anticipated that. In paragraph 9.10 of the White Paper we made it clear that the Government would consider the committee's recommendations and, if necessary, ask it for further advice on specific points before the referendum is held. 
 The Government would then set the date of the referendum and subsequently publish a short definitive statement of its proposals. Should the Government decide to make amendments or modifications to the boundary committee's proposals, there is provision for the statement to be made available to the public so that people will be aware of it when they come to vote. 
 Similarly, in his amendments, the hon. Gentleman would remove the ability to implement ''all or any of'' the boundary committee's recommendations. That would remove the Government's discretion and would place a duty to implement all or none of the recommendations. The argument for the inclusion of the provision is the same as for the previous amendment. The Government may decide that, although some recommendations are appropriate, others are not and it is sensible to allow a degree of discretion. The amendment that would remove subsection (3) entirely would remove the Government's ability to make modifications to the recommendations of the boundary committee, if necessary. Although the boundary committee is responsible for undertaking reviews and making recommendations, the Secretary of State is responsible for implementing any recommendations. Given that responsibility, it is only right that there is a provision to exercise discretion over implementation and to make modifications, if that is appropriate.

Adrian Flook: Given that there would have been consultation by the boundary committee, will the Minister give us an idea of the modification that might be required?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. The boundary committee will consult when developing its recommendations. It will publish its recommendations, and the Government may well receive representations on aspects of those. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that boundary issues are often controversial and there might well be an argument that a specific parish should move from one unitary authority to another and that it would be inappropriate for a parish to be part of a specific unitary authority. That would represent a relatively small change but the relevant group of people might overwhelmingly support it. If the Secretary of State were debarred from any opportunity to consider that, there would be a question about natural justice, even if the boundary committee had consulted at an earlier stage.
 We believe that the provision is necessary. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt realise—I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has already sussed this—that it is well precedented because it is exactly in line with the provisions in the now familiar 1992 Act that the Conservative Government 
 introduced to set a framework for making such arrangements.

Philip Hammond: The situation is not comparable. My objection is about the potential to mislead electors. I accept that the Minister has addressed that and I shall return to it in a moment. However, it is slightly disingenuous for the right hon. Gentleman to cite the 1992 Act as a proof for his case.

Nick Raynsford: I was responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who asked for examples of modifications that might be appropriate. I said that the provision for making modifications was precedented by the 1992 Act, so my comments were not inappropriate.
 Subsection (6) allows for mistakes in an order to be rectified, if that is necessary. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to give effect by order to all or any recommendations of the boundary committee either with or without modifications. The Bill does not provide for general order-making powers that can be exercised at will. Subsection (6) sensibly provides for errors to be rectified. The inclusion of the provision closely follows the tried and tested provisions of the 1992 Act, which contains the same power to rectify by order if necessary. The provision was deemed suitable and appropriate then and it is suitable and appropriate now.

Philip Hammond: Is the Minister saying that it would not be possible for an order made under the clause to contain a provision that any mistake in it could be corrected by a subsequent order? In other words, could the process be self-contained in the originating order?

Nick Raynsford: There is a technical issue. If I develop my speech, the hon. Gentleman will probably understand why the provision is necessary.
 The power in subsection (2) can be used only to implement a recommendation of the boundary committee. Once implemented, with or without modifications, the power is exhausted. It could not be used again to correct mistakes because such an order, legally, would not be for the purpose of implementing the recommendations. If it were necessary to correct a mistake in an implementation order, we would need to use the separate power in subsection (6). 
 I shall give a few examples of such errors. There were small map reference errors in the Buckinghamshire order and there was a typographical error in the Bedfordshire order. I shall not tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge the Government under which the errors were made—I will keep him guessing—but he will understand that such minor errors should be easily corrected and that the provision in the Bill to allow that is sensible.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful but I do not think that the Minister answered my question. Is there a general principle that would prevent the originating order from including a provision allowing mistakes to be rectified by a subsequent order? It would seem to be
 logical to deal with the matter in that internally contained way, rather than have a provision for that in primary legislation.

Nick Raynsford: I thought that I had already made the point that once the order has been made the power is exhausted, because that can be used only to implement recommendations.

Philip Hammond: Does the Minister say that an order cannot create a further order-making power?

Nick Raynsford: This takes us into arcane areas of legislative provision on which I would certainly need more detailed guidance before giving the hon. Gentleman a full response. I will write to him about that matter. The provision is clearly sensible and I have explained that it allows for minor adjustments. I hope that he will, on reflection, agree that it is sensible.
 I am told that a statutory instrument could not sub-delegate to make further provision, without that being sanctioned by Parliament. To make relatively minor adjustments, such as correcting a reference to maps or a typographical error in the Buckinghamshire order, would involve a complex parliamentary process. That would seem to be stretching Parliament's patience to the limit.

Philip Hammond: I do not want to pursue the matter too far, because I am sure that we can continue this fascinating discussion in correspondence. However, to say that there would need to be further parliamentary sanction to approve an order that would create the further order-making power seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious. I do not suggest that an order should give the Secretary of State the power to alter or amend that without referring back to Parliament. I am not aware that the creation of a further order-making power in the order could be prevented. That would, of course, be subject to the usual scrutiny processes relating to the presentation of such a second statutory instrument. I look forward, in due course, to reading the full answer in correspondence.

Nick Raynsford: I have already undertaken to write to the hon. Gentleman. On reflection, he might think that to go through the whole parliamentary procedure to amend one typographical error in one order would cause too much strain. The powers are clearly sensible and I hope, therefore, that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: It is easy for Ministers to present such catch-all clauses as terribly benign, saying, ''There's no need to worry, it's technical stuff. Don't trouble yourself.'' The Minister has, in his last sentence, made things worse. I was under the impression that typographical errors, such as those that are made when Bills are printed, are routinely corrected in legislation without the need for any further formal proceedings. [Interruption.] The Minister says that an order is different, but I would be astonished if I could go through all the orders that his Department has produced during the past few years without finding a single typographical error. I am prepared to make a small bet with him about that.
 Let us return to the substance of the debate. The Minister has addressed my principal concern. He said that the White Paper makes it clear that if the Government were not going to implement the boundary committee report in full, they would ensure that, prior to the referendum, the electors were aware of that and of the details of proposed modifications. That is exactly what I am seeking. My problem is that I cannot see that anywhere in the Bill. I do, however, see a statement in the form of a preamble to the question on the ballot paper, which is to be presented to electors. That says, rather blandly: 
''it is also intended that local government should be reorganised into a single tier.''
 I would like to see some commitment in the Bill that a precise statement would be made available in a form that is accessible to electors. That would give proper effect to what the Minister has said. 
 My helpful amendment to clause 2 would ensure that a simple table were included, without the gobbledegook that is written here about single tiers and so on, which people do not understand, showing on the right the proposed new authorities and on the left the constituent parts of the existing districts that would be included within them. Every elector of reasonable competence would therefore be able to understand what was proposed for the place in which he lived. If the Minister were able to give that suggestion, or a similar one, a fair wind when we debate this issue tomorrow, he would neatly deal with all the issues that have been raised during this debate. 
 I am afraid that, when the Minister asserts that the White Paper says that something will or will not happen, that just does not cut it. Ministers have become rather fond—especially during debates on this issue—of quoting White Papers as if they were enactments. That probably underlines the fact that a large parliamentary majority induces arrogance and an assumption that any legislation can be driven through Parliament. The assumption that Government Lobby fodder will always oblige may be valid at present, but it will not always be so. As the splits within the Labour party open up and the two separate factions become increasingly embattled, with the Chancellor's faction becoming increasingly emboldened, it will become—

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide of the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I will ask the Committee for leave to withdraw this amendment now, but I will address the Minister again on this specific point when we debate amendments to clause 2 tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will come to that debate with the generosity of spirit that I want to believe is in him but of which I have seen precious little evidence so far in his responses to my amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule agreed to.

Clause 16 - Application of 1992 Act

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in
clause 16, page 9, line 38, leave out 'sections 22 and' and insert 'section'.
 This explanation will become quite complicated—I hope that all my cross-referencing has gone according to plan. Section 22 of the 1992 Act refers to the power to create residuary bodies. The effect of amendment No. 57 is therefore to remove the ability to create residuary bodies that will assume the residual liabilities—and assets, I suppose—of local authorities that are to be abolished. 
 It is important that the Bill does not create a mechanism for increased public expenditure or duplication of resources and effort. We are talking about a reorganisation of local government in a region and the transfer of powers from two-tier authorities to unitary authorities; in other words, powers will either move up from shire districts or down from large county authorities that are to be restructured as more than one unitary authority. I can see no reason why all the assets and liabilities of existing authorities should not be vested in one or other of the newly created authorities. I suspect that we are talking about a one-off manipulation of the situation that may allow, for example, the Secretary of State to give a huge, concealed benefit to a region that is moving towards having an elected regional assembly and unitary authorities. 
 If—to select a region at random—the north-east were to choose in a referendum to pursue elected regional assemblies and the Minister were minded to establish residuary bodies for the liabilities of some of those authorities, might that not be a way of offering an inducement to electors in those regions? They would see a significant improvement in the financial situation of their local authorities as a result of the ability to transfer liabilities out to residuary bodies. Who would pick up the ultimate liability of those bodies? Would central Government pay—the taxpayer from other parts of the country? I am concerned about the way in which this provision might be used, but I also think that, even if it is not misused, it is simply inappropriate not to transfer the liabilities and assets of existing authorities to their successor authorities.

Christopher Leslie: I am surprised by this amendment, not least because—incorrectly, I suspect—my speaking notes suggested that it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats; I was expecting it to come from their end of the Room.
 The 1992 Act specifically gave credence to the idea that in certain situations residuary bodies may well be necessary for flexibility or common-sense reasons. Therefore, it is strange that all of a sudden the Conservative party is proposing never to allow such flexibility to exist, and that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge sees sinister motivations—he asked questions about manipulations of the situation being a motivation for creating a residuary body. It is also strange that he picked the north-east at random when, as everyone 
 now knows, the Audit Commission has deemed that that region has the highest proportion of excellent local authorities. As everybody can see, until such time as the boundary committee makes recommendations for a unitary structure, we cannot know what changes there might be to the local government structure of a particular region. Therefore, it would make sense to make provision now in case there are difficulties with regard to reasonable flexibility.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary's comments about the comprehensive performance assessment results neatly draw the Committee's attention to the correlation between adequacy of funding and performance of councils. He might draw a lesson for his Department from that.

Christopher Leslie: That comment implies that the hon. Gentleman believes that the north-east should receive a lower grant through the local government settlement. I am unsure whether that should be the Conservative party's policy, if its members want to show their face in that region. I suspect that my hon. Friends who represent the region will take note of that comment and place it in their manifestos in future elections.
 The evidence of previous structural changes shows that there are often property issues that cannot be resolved by successor authorities. In such circumstances, previous Governments as well as this one have found it necessary, pending the resolution of the problems, to appoint residuary bodies to take on certain property rights, liabilities and so forth, and generally to act as advisers on those issues. It would not make sense to prevent the Government from making similar arrangements in the case of forthcoming reviews, should the need arise. The provision for residuary bodies is sensible, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary has not addressed the issue, and he has not offered any relevant examples.

Christopher Leslie: It is my understanding that the last reorganisation involved the creation of the London residuary body, which took over certain property and other responsibilities from the Greater London council. That provides an example of how transitional arrangements can be necessary.

Philip Hammond: I understand that, and I understand the logic in the context of London, where the devolution of power was to a large number of successor authorities. This reorganisation will involve relatively modest changes to authority boundaries—we are talking about district authorities being amalgamated into unitary authorities, or county authorities perhaps being broken down into unitary authorities. I had hoped that the Minister would address this matter, because it is not immediately obvious to me that the proposed reorganisation would involve the kind of issues that arose in London. I fully understand why the London residuary body was created.
 I do not have chapter and verse on this matter so, in order not to delay the Committee, I beg to ask leave to 
 withdraw the amendment. I shall study the matter again in quieter moments. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Payments to Electoral Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I would like the Under-Secretary to tell the Committee something about his Department's budget. How much does he expect to pay to the Electoral Commission for the boundary committee's work? What estimates has he had? I presume that he has had meetings with the boundary committee and the Electoral Commission, and I presume that they have considered the work loads in the different regions. I certainly hope that they have. Ministers constantly refer to the implications for the boundary committee of undertaking more than one review simultaneously, which certainly implies that discussions have taken place. Figures must exist, so, before the Committee passes over clause 17, it would be most useful if the Under-Secretary gave us some numbers.

Christopher Leslie: I can certainly oblige with an indication of what costs may be incurred by the boundary committee in carrying out local government reviews. As we have said before, the boundary committee would be reimbursed by the Government. We estimate that the cost would be between £750,000 and £1 million per region for local government reviews. The money would come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's supply estimates. Money would be paid directly to the Electoral Commission, which is responsible for funding the boundary committee's work. Sums received by the Electoral Commission will be treated as income received, as can be seen in subsection (2).

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have missed what he said, but did he give different estimates for conducting boundary reviews in different regions? I thought that I heard only a single estimate.

Christopher Leslie: Estimates will range from between £750,000 and £1 million, depending on the region.

Philip Hammond: Will the Under-Secretary explain how it can cost £750,000 in the smallest region, with a population of 1.6 million electors, and £1 million in the largest region, with a population of 6.5 million electors? To me, and I suspect to many other members of the Committee, that range is not intuitively obvious. How have those figures been arrived at?

Christopher Leslie: I will explain. The figures represent the particular cost of carrying out the local government reviews, not the electoral area reviews, which obviously would be more detailed. Certain fixed costs are involved in setting up an exercise such as a local government review. Those fixed costs represent a large proportion of the total sum, which is why there is not necessarily a sliding scale in which the costs are
 proportional to the population. I hope that that is clear.

Philip Hammond: I have to press the Under-Secretary further because, apart from the obvious discrepancy between sizes of regions, the actual amount surprises me. He tells us, in effect, that the marginal cost of conducting a review of local government boundaries in the south-east, the population of which is 6.5 million, as compared to the north-east is only £250,000. That draws my attention to the long-time scale—a year, give or take—that he suggested would be required for such a local government review.
 How much resource is going into that effort? The sad fact in these times is that we cannot get a lot of resource for £250,000. Why will the Under-Secretary allow the review process to take a year when the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suggested that the availability of resources to the boundary committee was a restriction that had to be taken into account? He said that that was not necessarily a reference to money, but a reference to physical resources. Are we talking about so few people being available that £250,000 of incremental salaries represents the maximum resource that could be deployed in a boundary committee review in, say, the south-east region?

Christopher Leslie: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, although the estimates are those of the boundary committee and are also present in the explanatory notes. The boundary committee is currently working on more detailed estimates, and we will make those available in due course.

Lawrie Quinn: Surely one factor has to be the existing arrangements for local government and how many unitary authorities are already in place. As a consequence, for the Yorkshire and Humberside area, for example, the situation would be relevant so far as it applied to my county, North Yorkshire. Therefore, the costs would be quite different.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend points out one of several variables that could come into play when considering the costs involved. The boundary committee has been reasonable in its estimates, and has shown that it provides good value for money. It may not have done so in the world of expensive consultants employed by the Conservative party or those who normally come into contact with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Unlike some such expensive advisers, the boundary committee is prudent and reasonable, and has provided healthy suggestions including a range of options for the cost in those regions. The income would be reimbursed by the Government as income received by the Electoral Commission, for the purpose of estimate arrangements.

Philip Hammond: The intervention by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) clearly reinforced the point that I was trying to make. The work load that will be involved in conducting such a boundary review in the north-east region, compared to the work load involved in
 conducting such a review in the south-east region where the authorities are predominantly two-tier, is not effectively represented by the Under-Secretary's £250,000 differential.
 I will take no lectures from a Minister in this Government on the employment of expensive consultants. The sum of £250,000 would scarcely cover the Government's advertising and PR bill for the boundary committee review in any region. The truth is that no one has bothered to think what the cost of conducting a boundary committee review in the south-east or the east of England would be.

Christopher Leslie: As I explained, the estimates are those of the boundary committee. It is full of professional people who know the extent of work involved. There are reasons for the estimates that they have given, and they are working on more detailed estimates, which may not be the final ones but which will provide ball-park figures. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that it is irresponsible of the boundary committee to provide such estimates?

Philip Hammond: I am not privy to the question that the Under-Secretary put to the boundary committee, but the figures seem to represent a reasonable estimate of the range of costs of conducting reviews in Yorkshire and Humberside and north-west regions. The range of figures could not credibly be applied to reviews in the north-east or south-east regions. The Under-Secretary says that the figures come from the boundary committee, so I shall pursue the matter with that committee.
 I am a little surprised by the figures that the Under-Secretary has given me, including the relatively low cost of the boundary committee review—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is waving the explanatory notes at me. I hope that he will forgive me, but from my experience in Standing Committees, I have come to regard explanatory notes as little more reliable than the rest of Government spin. The explanatory notes tell us what the Government want us to believe about a Bill and invite the indolent to take the Government's expression of good intentions at face value. Our job, however, is to probe what powers the Bill actually gives the Government and, at the risk of being accused by Ministers of paranoia, to explore all the possibilities for misdeeds and malevolent interpretation.

John Butterfill: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not explore the same point again when we come to clause 28.

Philip Hammond: Thank you for you inspiration, Mr. Butterfill.

Lawrie Quinn: I am still listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Gary Streeter: So the hon. Gentleman should.

Lawrie Quinn: So I should. That is why we are here—at least that is why I am here.
 I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows the structure of local government in the north-east as well as I do, so why does he think that there would be such a gap between 
 the cost in the north-east and that in Yorkshire and Humberside? My understanding is that the number of local authorities in the north-east is equivalent to the number of local authorities that are not unitary authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside. North Yorkshire is the largest county in England—

John Butterfill: Order. I have been lenient in this discussion, but this matter should be considered under clause 28.

Philip Hammond: I will be guided by you on that, Mr. Butterfill. I thought that clause 17 dealt with provision of money to enable the boundary committee to carry out its functions under the Bill. Therefore, the cost of carrying out those functions would be relevant.

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning my judgment, which he is not entitled to do. The clause does not relate to actual amounts but to the right to carry out the function. The actual amounts can properly be discussed under clause 28. I will not tolerate any further discussion on this subject.

Philip Hammond: In that case, I have nothing to say.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Isles of Scilly

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Why is the clause necessary? Why is it necessary to exclude the poor Isles of Scilly and to define them as not being a relevant local authority? Furthermore, why is it necessary to give the Secretary of State power to reverse the provision? It seems to be a most odd arrangement, and I look forward to the Minister's clarification.

Matthew Green: I believe that the clause is in the Bill because of the so-called Scilly clause about the Isles of Scilly belonging to the United Kingdom, although I am sure that the Minister will elucidate on that. I am more interested about the results. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to make virtually any provision that he chooses. As this will not go before the Electoral Commission, does he think that the Isles of Scilly should be involved in regional government? If so, does he really think that the Isles of Scilly should be included in a region that stretches as far as the north-east corner of Gloucestershire?

John Butterfill: Order. I have several powers, but being psychic is not one. It would be more helpful if the Under-Secretary indicated more clearly whether he wishes to be called.

Christopher Leslie: I entirely accept your guidance, Mr. Butterfill. I shall ensure that I rise from my place noticeably.

Adrian Flook: Put your hand up.

Christopher Leslie: I shall not put my hand up, because that would not be in order.
 The Isles of Scilly should certainly be involved in regional government—as should any part of our great nation—in respect of their role and relationship with England and the south-west. It is reasonable for that participation to take place. The Isles of Scilly will not be subject to a local government review because they already have unitary local government. Local government in the Isles of Scilly differs from that elsewhere in England because the council for the Isles of Scilly is neither a county nor a district council. Several special provisions have been made to allow the council to exercise and perform specified local government functions. However, certain local government functions are performed on behalf of the Isles of Scilly by Cornwall county council. Clause 18 ensures that if a future local government review made structural changes in Cornwall, we would be able to provide, by order, for such functions to be performed by one or more of the successor authorities. That is why the provisions exist in the Bill in their current form.

Matthew Green: The Under-Secretary has not touched on what I asked him. I shall put it in straighter terms: will he explain what the Isles of Scilly have in common with the north-east corner of Gloucestershire?

Christopher Leslie: The Isles of Scilly are part of England and part of the south-west region. The fact that that part of England is made up of islands rather than being on the mainland is incidental to its inclusion in, participation with and relationship with a region or England. The people of the Isles of Scilly feel a strong affinity with Cornwall and the south-west and it is reasonable for them to have at least the opportunity to participate in the referendum arrangements that we are putting in place.

Gary Streeter: If the Under-Secretary were planning a tourist visit to the west country, would he try to fit in a visit to Stonehenge and the Isles of Scilly on the same day? They are both in the same region that he has designated.

Christopher Leslie: Transport infrastructure provisions set out by the previous Administration still plague the south-west and I am not sure whether it would be possible to make that journey comfortably in a single day, although I do not necessarily say that it would be impossible. If time allows in the future, I might well make such a journey.

Matthew Green: Presumably, we want regional government to bring government closer to the people. I realise that Bristol is a little closer to the Isles of Scilly than London, but it is still not very accessible to people on the Isles of Scilly in terms of making government more accountable and closer to people. Will the Under-Secretary elucidate on the accessibility of regional government to people on the Isles of Scilly?

Christopher Leslie: However much I might seek to legislate, I cannot bring the Isles of Scilly any closer to Cornwall. That would be a very difficult test. To pursue that analogy, one might suggest that just because the Outer Hebrides were not a part of mainland Scotland, they were not Scottish. That
 would be rather an odd way to make an argument about the Isles of Scilly. Given the Scilly arrangement that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I commend the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Advice of the Electoral Commission

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
clause 19, page 10, line 28, leave out from 'if' to end of line 32 and insert 'the Secretary of State is considering whether to cause a referendum to be held in that region about the establishment of an elected assembly for the region.'.
 The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's discretion on the Electoral Commission's recommendations about the appropriate electoral boundaries for a region that he has determined will elect a regional assembly. If local government boundaries are important, and the Government clearly think that they are—they have placed much emphasis on the need to conduct the local government boundary review ahead of the referendum—then so are the electoral boundaries in the regions. 
 The Minister argues that the regions he proposes are based on some community of identity. Although we will not have that substantive debate again, I suspect that Committee members would disagree with his proposition in relation to many of the proposed regions. Similarly, regional identities will not necessarily override more local senses of community and identity. It will be equally important to people in an area that has chosen to elect a regional government that the districting in the region—if I can use such a horrible word—reflects the communities and distinct identities of the sub-entities in the region. We think that it is important that the matter is handled properly in advance of a referendum. The same logic applies as the Government used in relation to the local government boundary review: the relevant action should be taken in advance of a referendum. 
 Electors must understand what they would get, in terms of local government structures and regional assembly constituencies, if they voted yes. That would be an important issue in many areas. In some regions, issues regarding urban-rural divisions would be raised—that has already been debated in this forum. Issues would also be raised about the representation of communities that might feel that they are distinct from other parts of a region. It is entirely legitimate for an elector to ask, prior to casting his vote, ''How will I be represented in the regional assembly? Will my representative be elected for a large neighbouring town and represent my village, or community, as an afterthought, or will I fall under a different arrangement of districts, where the community with which I identify is a predominant factor and force?'' 
 Not everybody will be happy or satisfied with the outcome of these deliberations, but if the Minister's logic is that it is important that electors understand the local government structures that will apply post-
 referendum, it is equally important for them to understand the regional electoral boundaries. Otherwise, the Government's sense of priorities is strange. The boundaries that apply to his region's elected assembly will be at least as important to an elector who is deciding whether he is in favour of elected regional assemblies as local government boundaries. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Gary Streeter: I rise to support my hon. Friend. It is important for people participating in a referendum on regional government to make a choice based on every possible piece of information. District boundaries are important to people. In any review of constituencies, people's support depends on which communities are brought together, whether they identify with their district and whether they feel comfortable with the new arrangements. That is particularly relevant in this case.
 There is a clue in clause 19(3) that the draftsman of the Bill recognises the importance of that point. It mentions the Electoral Commission advising the Secretary of State about a number of things, including the number of electoral areas and their names. What is the significance of that? It is that the name of a district or constituency partly reflects its character and identity. Should not people know that before they decide whether to vote for a regional government or to express interest in a referendum? It is not as though the Government were bashful about doing things in advance. They are already taking soundings—before the Bill has been debated in the House of Commons, let alone the other place—about whether people are interested in having a referendum. They have put out to consultation their draft policy and procedure guidance for the boundary committee on the local government review for England. What is to stop them drafting something about the boundaries of the new districts at the same time? That is important. The Government should give the electorate the maximum amount of information so that they can make an informed choice about whether to have regional government. It should be supplied at the right time, not after it is a done deal. I strongly support the amendment.

Nick Raynsford: Perhaps it would help the Committee if I briefly explain the significance of clause 19 and its effect before considering amendment No. 68. Clause 19 enables the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice on electoral areas and the total number of members to be elected to a regional assembly. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can only seek advice for regions in which a referendum has been held, and for which it is proposed to establish an assembly. The amendment would, instead, enable the Secretary of State to give such a direction to the Electoral Commission when considering whether to cause a referendum to be held. Taken with amendment No. 69, it would oblige the Secretary of State to seek that advice before a referendum were held.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps the Minister could clear one thing up. This is an elaborate procedure to allow the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give him advice. Is the Secretary of
 State unable to ask for advice from the Electoral Commission in the absence of a statutory provision in primary legislation?

Nick Raynsford: We understand that we require this statutory cover to instruct the Electoral Commission to do the work necessary to prepare electoral arrangements in a region that votes for an elected regional assembly in a referendum. That could, of course, be contained in the primary legislation that gives effect to elected regional assemblies, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that there would be a time consequence, which is why we have included provisions in the Bill. Once a referendum has been held and a region has indicated that it wants an elected regional assembly, the Government will introduce substantive legislation to make that possible. At the same time, having programmed in its many other responsibilities, the Electoral Commission could begin considering the region's electoral boundaries. That would allow for the proper, sensible and expeditious handling of all the issues, without unreasonable delay.

Gary Streeter: How long does the Minister expect such an exercise to take the Electoral Commission? It is extremely complicated to start again with a completely different map, particularly if people cannot even be guided by existing parliamentary boundaries. How long will that take?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. The Electoral Commission will clearly need to take account of the region's new local government framework, and it would be inappropriate to reach conclusions about electoral boundaries without regard to that structure. That is why the hon. Gentleman's earlier suggestion that the work be brought forward and carried out simultaneously with other parts of the process is clearly inappropriate. Under the proper timetable, the boundary committee will consider the relevant local government organisation for the region, the people of the region will then determine in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly and the consequent reorganisation of local government, and the Electoral Commission will then consider electoral arrangements in the region. I would not want to give an estimate of the time required, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it will be a reasonably time-consuming activity. That is why we are making provision in the Bill to allow the commission's work to be carried out after a referendum and before legislation is in place to enable the elected regional assembly to come into existence.

Gary Streeter: I am following the Minister's arguments carefully. His answers are always helpful, and he has given us a clear time scale. He is saying that the first referendum will be in autumn 2004, and the commission could not possibly finish its work until spring 2005. Elections for the new regional assemblies would then take place at the beginning of 2006, at the earliest, and assemblies would be in place by 2007. Is that the kind of time scale that we are working on?

Nick Raynsford: Yes, it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we hold a referendum in autumn 2004, we
 will need to pass substantive legislation to allow for the election of a regional assembly. That will take a substantial period of time after the referendum, although I would not want to be too precise about the dates. However, the hon. Gentleman is very much in the right ball park with the dates that he gave for the creation of an elected regional assembly. We do not want to delay matters even further by waiting until the substantive legislation is passed before giving the Electoral Commission the power to do its work. It is right to give it powers in the Bill, so that it can get on with its preparatory work on electoral boundaries while the substantive legislation is being considered. That all makes good sense.
 The only possible argument against that approach, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge deployed, is that the electorate should know the details before they vote in a referendum. I shall now tell him why that is not necessary. The local government review must be completed because it will involve a fundamental change to the structure of local government, and there is no way of knowing the outcome. It could involve a unitary structure that is based on a single county, or several unitary structures that are based on different districts. Until the boundary committee carries out the review, however, there is no way of knowing, despite the Opposition's scaremongering and their suggestion that our agenda is to abolish the counties. We have made it clear that we have no such agenda. It will be up to the boundary committee to determine the appropriate structure for local government in a region. That must be determined and made clear to the electorate before they vote in a referendum.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have a view on the range of appropriate population sizes for unitary authorities?

Nick Raynsford: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and looked at our draft guidance, in which we make it clear that the boundary committee's objectives would be to address the effectiveness of local government and its representative role covering appropriate communities. We do not specify any figures; we say only that they must be of a sufficient size to be effective. That is a steer, but there is no precise indication: we do not believe that it is right to tie down the boundary committee with arbitrary figures—unlike the Opposition, who love them, as we know from an earlier debate this morning.

Philip Hammond: That is not true.
 This is a very interesting matter. Is the Minister saying that he would be content to see a proposal for Kent, for example, to become a unitary authority in its own right and deliver all services at that level, given the size of that county?

Nick Raynsford: It is not, in the first instance, for me to take a view on this. The boundary committee must conclude on it, and then make recommendations to Ministers. I would want to look very closely at its recommendations. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the way that we have set out this guidance
 that there is no preconception that would prevent that particular outcome, if the boundary committee were to recommend it.

Desmond Swayne: How would the Minister respond to a recommendation that a county should be a unitary authority, given that the proposed north-east region is smaller than some counties?

Nick Raynsford: As I stressed in earlier debates, when I was talking about local government—this also applies to the regions—one of the key issues is that they must be of a sufficient size to be effective, but the other key point is that there must be a recognition of regional identity.
 There is a strong sense of regional identity in the north-east. I do not think that any Committee members would deny that hon. Members from the north-east have a clear sense of the separate characteristics of their region and that they want that to be recognised. That is why it is appropriate for such areas to be regions, even though they are smaller than many others. 
 There are enormous variations in other countries. In Germany, the Länder range from huge areas such as North Rhine-Westphalia to individual cities such as Hamburg. In Spain, there are also huge differences in size between the large and the small regions. In all countries, a balance is struck between what is an appropriate area in terms of recognising local and regional identity and what is an appropriate size to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. 
Mr. Hammond rose—
Matthew Green rose—

Nick Raynsford: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

Philip Hammond: The Minister's logic is inexorably taking him towards the position that he would have no objection in principle to a proposal from the boundary committee that the whole of the north-east region should be a single unitary authority, because that would be a smaller unitary authority than, for example, unitary Kent. Is not the Minister disappearing up his own logic, so to speak?

Nick Raynsford: I am most certainly doing no such thing. I have stressed the importance of local and regional identity. It may well be the case that the county of Kent is considered to be suitable to be a unitary authority—although parts of it are already organised into unitary authorities, so it would not be possible to have a wholly unitary Kent, because those already in unitary Medway would not be amused by that prospect.
 However, there are great differences in the north-east between, for example, rural Northumberland and Teesside. There are significant variations, and we would not regard it as appropriate for there to be a single unitary authority covering the whole of that area, especially as there is also a large number of unitary authorities in the north-east region. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his hypothetical argument to the point at which he is also at risk of disappearing up the alleyway of false logic.

Philip Hammond: The Minister's best point was that there were already a large number of unitary authorities in the north-east—which the flawed structure of his Bill would prevent from being reviewed. However, he cannot argue that there is a significant sense of identity in the north-east region that makes it an appropriate unit, and then argue in the next breath that there are significant differences in terms of identity and so forth that require separate unitary authorities to be established.

Nick Raynsford: Of course I can. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that people have both local and regional loyalties. I represent a London constituency. I feel myself to be a London Member of Parliament, but, within London, I represent the area of Greenwich and Woolwich, where people feel an acute sense of loyalty about their local community. Local and regional loyalties can exist side by side. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that.

Matthew Green: The Minister has moved onto dangerous ground. He mentions regional identities and says that he represents Greenwich and London. I am proud to be an MP from Shropshire, but I am not especially proud to be an MP from the west midlands. There is not the same sense of regional identity. The logic of the Minister's argument is that we should review the regional boundaries so that we have regions that reflect regional identity. By chance, that may be the case in the north-east, where the administrative boundaries set up by the Conservatives may reflect the regional identity. In other parts of the country, they do not.

Nick Raynsford: I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will get over his identity crisis soon and recognise that the west midlands is a region. It already exists. As we have said in previous debates, we do not intend to re-open the issue of regional boundaries because that would simply be a recipe for endless discussion and no progress.
 To return to the key issue—

Desmond Swayne: May I challenge the Minister? He says that there would be endless discussions and no progress. Why is that his assessment? Should there not be an examination of the facts before we take the matter forward? After all, the Conservative Government set up the regions for a quite different purpose.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Conservative Government were responsible for confirming the existing regions as the administrative units for regional governments. They did not accept the need for devolution or democratic accountability within the regions, but they certainly felt that the regions were appropriate for administrative purposes. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was responsible for the policy, used some logic in pursuing his approach. I certainly think that he did, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for New Forest, West does not accept that.
 We do not believe that it is essential for the precise electoral boundaries to be known in advance of a 
 referendum because they are subject to change, as hon. Members know well. We have all gone through the process of boundary changes, but nobody would suggest that our constituencies should be questioned because there happened to be a review of the ward boundaries or that the electoral map of the country—and therefore the constitution of the country—should be called into question because of parliamentary constituency boundary reviews. 
 Things happen that change the electoral boundaries. Therefore, it cannot be a pre-condition for a referendum for people to know precisely what the electoral boundaries will be. However, people will know a great deal from our White Paper and from the statement that we will make before we order any referendums to be held. We will set out—as the White Paper does—the electoral system including the balance between individual constituencies and top-up members to provide the additional member system that we are committed to implementing, and all such relevant issues. The electorate will be aware of the broad structure of representation that will apply within the region if they vote for an elected regional assembly.

Gary Streeter: Will that information contain knowledge of how many elected members there will be per county?

Nick Raynsford: The White Paper clearly shows our intention that there should be between 25 and 35 members of an elected regional assembly. Clearly, there will be a need to consider that in relation to each individual region, and I do not want to pre-empt that in any way. It is likely that numbers in the smaller north-eastern region would be at the bottom end of the spectrum, and in the larger regions, such as the north-west, they would be in the upper end of the spectrum. Therefore, it would be relatively easy for people to establish the kind of structure that would apply, including the representation for any county. As we said in the White Paper, our figures suggest that it will generally be possible to have at least one representative for each county within the overall framework for England.

Philip Hammond: For the convenience of electors, will the Minister also spell out how many electors per elected representative there will be in each region?

Nick Raynsford: That again will be implicit in the overall approach, although I have no problem with that information becoming more explicitly available.
 The Opposition take a different view to us and believe that there should be a rough equality in the number of electors in each area. Of course, that would perversely result in a very large elected regional assembly in larger regions. That would be completely counter to our policy—to which I thought the Opposition would be sympathetic—of keeping administration lean, avoiding a proliferation of over-large bureaucracies, and not having excess elected members rattling around like peas in a pod. That would not be compatible with good, efficient administration.

Philip Hammond: As the Minister well knows, fairness—in the sense of having roughly equal numbers of electors per elected member—will give rise to the consequences that he suggests only if he sticks rigidly to the quite inappropriate regional boundaries that have been drawn up for the large regions in south-east and east England, for example.

Nick Raynsford: The kind of electoral equality to which the hon. Gentleman seems to be committed could be achieved only by a complete recasting of the map of the country, with a series of arbitrary square kilometre grids with exactly equal electoral representation. That cannot work. We live in a hugely diverse country. We know that there are huge variations between densely crowded city areas and large rural areas.
 If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the constituencies must be exactly the same numerically, I should tell him that the area covered by north Scotland, as a constituency, would be completely disproportionate to the area covered by an inner-city area in London or west Yorkshire. It has always been part of the framework in our electoral arrangements that variations are permitted to enable those kinds of factors to be taken into account. I cannot imagine that the hon. Gentleman seriously believes in an almost Napoleonic approach, with precise measurements according to some numerical criterion. The hon. Gentleman cannot think that that should be the overriding factor, and that we should not take account of historic, geographic and cultural trends. I should have thought that the party that calls itself Conservative would regard those characteristics as important.

Philip Hammond: I would have thought that the Minister and his colleagues in government might be attracted by Napoleonic approaches. That is certainly the impression that we have on the Opposition Benches. I understand the Minister's technique now; when he does not like the line of argument of a Conservative Member, he restates it in its most extreme and rigid exposition. Not withstanding what the Minister has just said, does he think that there would be any fundamental difficulty in principle in subdividing the south-east region, for example, into four or five regions, each of which would be approximately similar in size to the north-east region?

Nick Raynsford: I have already told the hon. Gentleman in similar debates in previous sittings that our view is that reopening the matter of regional boundaries will not be productive. We believe that it is right to proceed on the basis of the existing regional boundaries that were confirmed by the Conservative party when it was in government. Those boundaries provide a suitable building block for elected regional assemblies.

Gary Streeter: The Minister is opening a can of worms in terms of the numbers of people that elected representatives will represent. Is he aware that the previous parliamentary boundary commission had a target of roughly 69,000 people to a constituency? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and I represent roughly the same number of people, but she has a close-knit urban
 constituency, and I have a rather sprawling suburban and rural constituency? There is already rough equality between parliamentary boundaries. Why does the Minister want to do something completely different for the new regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening when I described the north-west of Scotland as an area that had significantly lower representation because of its characteristics. Does he suggest that the highlands and islands of Scotland should be subject to the same numerical criteria as other regions?

Jim Knight: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Isle of Wight is the largest constituency in terms of population which it would be illogical to split in two. That is in England.

Nick Raynsford: Such considerations, whether geographical or cultural, inevitably need to be taken into account.
 We have continued at great length but are straying some way from the key issue, which is whether the amendment is helpful. It is not, because it would be inappropriate for the work to be undertaken at the same time as that of the boundary committee, for the reasons that I explained to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). It is not necessary for the work to be completed before a referendum. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will therefore agree to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I have been singularly unconvinced by the Minister's arguments, as I suspect have other members of the Committee. He seemed to undermine his case.
 Electors choosing whether to support the idea of an elected regional assembly for their region are unarguably as likely to be interested in the electoral boundaries in the region as they are in the local government arrangements for it, and the boundaries of those local government units. The Minister's position is illogical. 
 I suspect that a political calculation underlies the Minister's attempt to justify the bizarre juxtaposition of an absolute requirement to settle the local government boundaries ahead of a referendum, and an absolute refusal to consider the electoral boundaries ahead of a referendum. He calculates that uncertainty about the unitarisation of local government in an area would be exploited by no campaigners to sow doubt in the minds of electors about how that review might turn out. He concludes that although some people will be upset by the outcome, his side of the argument will benefit from having the matter settled before a referendum. 
 Similarly, the Minister concludes that on balance his side of the argument would do better if the electoral boundaries in the region remained shrouded in mystery and fog at the time of a referendum, fearing that people in different parts of the region would start to reflect on the relative strength of their voice in the region. They would start to realise that the regional assembly was not a panacea, but merely the beginning 
 of the next cycle of the problem that the regional agenda is intended to address. 
 Although there may be identities among the English people, the Minister rightly says that there are sub-identities in some of the regions. Of course, there will be sub-sub-identities in different communities in those regions. The whole process starts again. The Minister's solution of going hell for leather with retrospective powers and settling the local government review as quickly as possible before the referendum, but refusing to address the electoral boundaries decision until after a referendum, is based on pure perceived political expediency. We feel that that is unfair and unreasonable, and works contrary to the interests of transparency and maximum information being available to electors. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment in a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No.69, in
clause 19, page 10, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.70, in 
clause 19, page 10, line 35, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
 Amendment No.72, in 
clause 19, page 11, line 6, leave out paragraph (5).

Philip Hammond: Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would remove the word ''may'' and insert the word ''shall''. They would remove some of the Secretary of State's discretion. They were tabled in the context of amendment No. 68, and were intended to provide for a pre-referendum direction to be given to the Electoral Commission. However, we may equally consider the significance of a post-referendum direction.
 Clearly, the matter of electoral boundaries within a region will need to be addressed if an elected regional assembly is to go ahead. It seems appropriate that the Secretary of State should give the task of advising on the appropriate boundaries in the terms set out in the Bill—the number of electoral areas, the name by which each area should be known, the total number of members to be elected to the assembly—to the Electoral Commission. The commission is an impartial body that can consider such matters afresh and without any hint of political taint or prejudice. 
 I hope that it is the Government's intention to go down that route. The Minister will doubtless tell me that it is absolutely the Government's intention, but 
 that does not answer the question of why the Bill is expressed in permissive rather than prescriptive terms. Notwithstanding the huge affection—I choose my words carefully—with which hon. Members hold the present Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, we cannot always be prepared to entrust ourselves to his discretion. 
 Sometimes, when Ministers tell us that they will definitely do a certain thing, we need to ask them to write that restriction on their freedom of action into legislation. This is just such an example, and I must ask the Minister why he is so reluctant—I assume that he is reluctant; I may be given a pleasant surprise, but the Minister's body language does not inspire me with confidence—to go down that route and to set out the procedure to be followed in the way that most ordinary people would expect it to be set out. If there were an election or referendum and the result were a certain result, people could expect certain things to lead in due course to the establishment of the elected regional assembly, with the names and boundaries of electoral districts, and the number of members as recommended by the Electoral Commission. That seems reasonable and I hope that, if the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, he will give a very good reason. 
 Amendment No. 72 seeks to leave out subsection (5) of clause 19. The reasoning behind it follows a theme that we have discussed before. Subsection (5) says: 
''A direction given under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction.''
 The problem that I have is that things could go on behind closed doors. The Secretary of State could give a direction, realise that the outcome will not be as he wanted, and then revoke the direction, which would, I suspect, prevent the Electoral Commission from publishing any advice that it had drafted and was minded to give to the Secretary of State. 
 The removal of subsection (5) is consistent with using prescriptive language in subsections (2) and (3). We want the Secretary of State to be required to embark upon this course once he has directed that an elected assembly be established in a region. It logically follows that we do not want him to be able to vary or to revoke that direction in a discretionary way. 
 If the Secretary of State wants to require or not require, and to vary and revoke things that have been required, why not do so by means of an order? If it were done that way, Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise any proposals, including any subsequent proposals to undo those proposals. That would be reasonable. However, it will not be done by means of an order; it will be done by direction. As I understand it, any such direction will not be subject to any scrutiny whatsoever. That is unfortunate. 
 Reflecting on this issue a few moments ago, a question occurred to me. I will put it to the Minister. The question would not have occurred to me had we not had such extensive discussions earlier on exclusion 
 of access to the courts. Will a direction given, or not given, by the Secretary of State be subject to judicial review? If a member of the public, an elector, is dissatisfied by the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion to make, or not to make, a direction, will it be open to that person to challenge the process in the courts? I emphasise the word ''process''. I guess that the answer is yes but I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the point.

Gary Streeter: As ever, we have been concise, brief and to the point. The only interpretation of the words in subsection (2),
''The Secretary of State may give the Electoral Commission a direction''
 is that the Government are reserving the right not to give a direction. The Secretary of State may or may not give a direction. 
 Subsection (3) says: 
''Such a direction may''—
 or may not— 
''require the Electoral Commission to give the Secretary of State advice''.
 What implication should we draw from the fact that the Government are reserving the right not to instruct the Electoral Commission to undertake the work that this clause is all about—to come up with a new map of the new regional districts, complete with district names and the total number of members to be elected to the regional assembly? The Electoral Commission may not be charged with that work. That is the only implication that one can draw from this clause. 
 If the Government do not instruct the Electoral Commission to do the work, who else is going to do it? Do the Government want to deal with it in-house? They may take the view that the Electoral Commission's overview of the boundary review was so disadvantageous to the Government that they should take that work away from it and do it themselves. Perhaps they will feel nervous in the run-up to the regional voting and want to ensure that the districts—the mini-constituencies that are to be set up—will give them the maximum advantage. That is the only conclusion that we can draw. 
 Perhaps when the time comes, the Government will, as most of us fear, have run out of money. Perhaps it will be too expensive to allow the Electoral Commission to do the work and a junior Minister will work out the boundaries as cheaply as possible on the back of a fag packet, if we still have smoking in this country then. Perhaps—hon. Members can tell that I have thought deeply about this—the Government intend not to do the work themselves, but to take it away from the Electoral Commission and give it to someone else, possibly an organisation that had been particularly helpful to the Government—perhaps a firm of lawyers that offered wider services.

Philip Hammond: More seriously, is not there a possibility that the Government might choose to give the task to the regional chambers, funding for which is proposed in a later clause of the Bill?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. The Government reserve to themselves the right to ask any other organisation to draw up a new map in relation to regional assemblies. I assume that the people elected to the regional governments will be called regional assembly members, so that they will be known as RAMs for ever more. I do not know if that is the sort of thing that the Government are looking for.

Philip Hammond: I would not want to claim credit for the observation, because I think that it originated from the Labour Back Benches, but if the Government ran true to form, they would prefer sheep.

Gary Streeter: And possibly the odd poodle.
 If the Government do not accept the amendment, we shall want to know why they are reserving to themselves the right to undertake such sensitive and important work. Why are they reserving the right to ask any other organisation to do it? 
 The Minister must speak; the moment of destiny has come.

Desmond Swayne: Not quite.
 No doubt the Minister will seek to allay our concerns by telling us precisely the Government's intentions. To pre-empt that, I remind hon. Members that in debating the previous group of amendments the Minister prayed in aid the fact that a Conservative Government confirmed the existing boundaries. I warn hon. Members that the Bill may endure for some time. It may be some time before a Secretary of State is persuaded that there is sufficient level of interest in a region such as the south-east to warrant a referendum.

Nick Raynsford: No.

Philip Hammond: Is my hon. Friend not astonished that the Minister has, from a sedentary position, said ''No,'' to his comment? Does not that show that all that we are considering is a sham, and that the Government have already made their decision?

Desmond Swayne: I must disappoint my hon. Friend. Nothing that the Minister could say would astonish me—nor could anything about the conduct of the Bill, which, as my hon. Friend says, is a sham.
 It will take some time before all the provisions of the Bill are implemented. My hon. Friend drew the attention of the Committee to the proper esteem and affection in which the Deputy Prime Minister is held, but he might not endure to take the relevant decisions.

Philip Hammond: Just for the record, I think that I used the word ''affection'', but not ''esteem''. I chose my words with care.

Desmond Swayne: I stand corrected. Still, it will take some time for decisions to be taken under the Bill, by which time a quite different Ministry may be responsible. Members of the Committee should be careful about specifying the way in which they think Ministers ought to act. That is the aim of the amendments.

Lawrie Quinn: I cannot resist saying something about the line that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. Many campaigners for regional government throughout the country have described the action to
 which he refers as the domino effect, in that eventually all the regions will subscribe to regional government. Does he believe that the domino effect will win out?

Desmond Swayne: I am not making such a prediction. It may take some time for a region to show sufficient interest to prompt the provisions of the Bill into action. We cannot foresee the outcome of the decision. Were there to be a domino effect, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would take some time for all the dominos to fall.

Nick Raynsford: We seem to be reaching a stage in our proceedings at which the Opposition are overwhelmed by paranoia and invective. That is curiously inappropriate. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that the amendments were tabled originally with amendment No. 68, which we have already discussed. He may be grateful for your discretion, Mr. Butterfill, given that you ruled that this group of amendments should be taken separately, not dismissed along with amendment No. 68, which we have relegated to the bin.
 There is a time in most Committee proceedings when the Opposition may hope to enjoy modest success. I do not wish to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he has clearly misread my body language. He has made my life hard with his outrageous implications and references to Napoleonic instincts, which is how he described my approach. My generosity is tested in such circumstances. Such comments are offensive, given that I represent Greenwich, which has naval associations such as the Royal Naval college, where Nelson's body lay before its burial at St. Paul's cathedral, and I am a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the head of which the hon. Gentleman says is held with great affection. The hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly added that the Deputy Prime Minister was regarded with esteem. My right hon. Friend now presides over the building that used to be the Old Admiralty. We are surrounded in that building by statues and pictures of Nelson, so for us to be accused of Napoleonic tendencies is particularly offensive. 
 However, I intend to be generous. Amendment No. 69 would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice under clause 19. It is our policy to seek the advice of the Electoral Commission on such matters in all instances when an elected assembly is to be established. That is the reason for this part of the Bill. Without it, the Electoral Commission would not have the power to give us advice on the matters under clause 19(3). 
 We put the provision in this Bill, as opposed to the subsequent substantive Bill, to make it possible for the Electoral Commission to prepare its advice while the main substantive Bill is going through Parliament. The precise timing for the first assemblies is uncertain. It may not be necessary or even desirable for the commission to start work on that as soon as it is proposed to establish an assembly. The use of ''may'' will give us more flexibility over when to issue such a direction to the commission, as a duty would require the direction to be made as soon as possible. However, 
 given that we fully intend to seek the Electoral Commission's advice on electoral areas in all instances where we propose to hold a referendum on elected regional assemblies, we are willing to think about whether we could narrow the discretion and make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to seek the commission's advice on such matters, without there being a potential disadvantage in that, if there were a period of time, we might fall foul of the word ''shall'', which would imply that an immediate response be made when that may not be appropriate. We shall try to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective, without the possible downside consequences that I have described. 
 We cannot be quite as friendly towards amendments Nos. 70 and 72. Amendment No. 70 would require the Electoral Commission to give advice on all issues listed in subsection (3). There might be circumstances in which advice on individual issues would be inappropriate. For example, we might instruct the Electoral Commission to adopt the maximum number of 35 members for a large region. It would be foolish to have to instruct the Electoral Commission to advise us on something on which we had already made a decision. 
 Amendment No. 72 would have a similar effect, for reasons that we discussed in a previous debate and that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge recognised. There might be occasions when it is necessary to give the Electoral Commission more time to make its recommendations. Putting an embargo on the ability to vary any direction would be unduly restrictive. 
 The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about judicial review. I confirm that the Secretary of State's powers would be constrained by the principles of administrative law and, therefore, would be subject to judicial review. With that assurance and the positive response to amendment No. 69, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I can only imagine that members of the Committee are reflecting on what a close shave our democracy had. My churlishness in likening the Government—not the Minister, I hasten to say—to that of Napoleon nearly changed the course of history and forced the Minister to withdraw his rather less than committed offer to look at the matter again. I am grateful for his offer to examine the degree of discretion that is provided by subsection (2).
 I understand that the Minister does not want to be constrained to have a time period that is necessarily within a week or a month. That looks a little like a cover to me. I would have thought that, if we had taken that approach throughout our consideration of the Bill, we would probably find other gaps in the logic. However, if the Minister can find a way that allows the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to advise before the boundaries of the electoral areas are established, that is all that we would require. 
 The Minister's confirmation of the point on judicial review is very useful to the Committee because it means that the Secretary of State's behaviour will be constrained and his ability to ignore the Electoral Commission's advice, to behave arbitrarily or capriciously in relation to it, or to revoke or to vary in a way that is arbitrary or contrary to good administrative practice would also be constrained. 
 I am, however, a little curious about what the Minister said about subsection (3) and amendment No. 70. Why does he think that it is acceptable for Ministers to instruct the Electoral Commission about the number of elected members that will be in an assembly? Why does he not think that it would always be preferable for Ministers to hear the Electoral Commission's advice before issuing an instruction? The advice might not change their minds and, frankly, many of us in this Room think that very little would change their minds if they are made up, but it could do no harm to listen to advice. It would give a third party the opportunity to take the judicial review route with evidence of the Electoral Commission's advice.

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend has picked up on an important point. What is the stage of the process at which he anticipates that the Government will make the decisions? Surely they should always take advice. The Minister seems to anticipate a different and secret process.

Philip Hammond: One would hope so, but clearly the Government may not always take advice.
 In view of what the Minister said helpfully about amendment No. 69 and the confirmation of availability of the judicial review, I shall withdraw the amendment. I look forward to supporting the appropriate Government amendment on Report and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in
clause 19, page 11, line 4, leave out from 'direction' to end of line 5 and insert 'shall specify that so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the Electoral Commission shall ensure that the number of electors in each electoral district is approximately equal in all regions'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.71, in
clause 19, page 11, line 5, at end add 'and shall specify how many members of the assembly not directly elected by an electoral area are to be appointed'.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that many members of the Committee will have been anxiously awaiting amendment No. 73, so that we may engage in an important consideration of the matters that it raises.

John Butterfill: Order. I am afraid that time has defeated us.
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.